For more information, see the Membership section of this website.
For more information, see the Jurisdiction section of this website.
For more information, see the Code of Judicial Conduct section of this website.
The Commission does not have authority to review or reverse any judge's decision. The remedy for dissatisfaction with a judge's ruling requires following the steps provided by law, including appeal. The Commission is not a substitute for protecting your legal rights. You should contact a lawyer in private practice to protect your rights in civil matters.
It is important to understand the limitations on the Commission's authority. The Commission does not represent the people who contact it. Our job is to gather facts from all available sources and to decide whether a judge or commissioner engaged in judicial misconduct - a violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct.
The Commission is not a substitute for protecting your legal rights. You should contact a practicing lawyer to protect your rights. Our authority is limited to dealing with violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct adopted by the Washington State Supreme Court. A judge's decisions may be incorrect and cause harm without being a violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct.
Higher courts have the authority and responsibility to review and possibly reverse judge's legal decisions, but the Commission cannot do that. Even if a judge's decision is legally or factually wrong and serious harm results, that is generally considered to be legal error and not an ethical misconduct that the Commission can address. Judges are allowed and supposed to exercise their discretion in making decisions. It is possible that a legal error could also show evidence of ethical misconduct, which is what the Commission is empowered to look at, if the error or exercise of discretion was motivated by an improper motive (such as bias, conflict of interest, or revenge), or if the legal error was exceptionally serious and obvious, or if there was a pattern or practice of legal error demonstrating incompetence or disability.
For example, a complaint that a judge refused to set a low bail or set bail too low for a criminal defendant would be dismissed by the Commission as a complaint about the exercise of judicial discretion, and not about misconduct. Similarly, without additional evidence of improper motive or practice, a complaint that a judge imposed too heavy or light a sentence would be dismissed by the Commission as a complaint about the exercise of judicial discretion, and not about misconduct. Even if the Commission found that a judge did operate with improper motive or bias, the Commission's action could only be to discipline the judge for the ethical misconduct. The Commission's action would not, by itself, change the effect or force of a judge's decision. Only the appellate courts can do that.
Because judges are expected to exercise discretion and because their legal decisions can be wrong without being unethical, proving improper motive, etc, as an ethical issue can be time consuming and difficult to prove. If a complainant has evidence of a judge's misconduct that led to an improper result, that should be provided with the complaint. Again, it is important to stress that the judge's decision can only be changed using court procedures. The judge's decision will not be affected by any action taken by the Commission.
Initially, complaints, and the fact that a complaint has been made, are confidential. Many complaints are completely investigated without notifying the judge of the investigation. In the course of investigation, the judge may be provided an opportunity to respond to the allegations. The complainant may be identified if the judge could not respond without such identification. In some instances, the nature of the complaint will itself identify the complainant.
If the initial proceedings reveal probable cause that a violation has occurred, a formal Statement of Charges is served on the judge and the statement is made public, as are all subsequent documents filed thereafter. Fact-finding hearings are public and witnesses may be subpoenaed to testify. At the public hearing, the Commission files the finding of probable cause and records upon which it based its decision to conduct a hearing. These records may include a copy of the complaint.
See the Confidentiality section of this website for more information.
Confidentiality is intended to encourage complainants to express their concerns without fear of reprisal or retribution. It is further intended to protect a judge's reputation and the integrity of the judicial process from unsubstantiated allegations.The Commission is directed to conduct its investigations confidentially. Commission members, staff, and court personnel, including lawyers, are prohibited from disclosing the fact that a complaint was made or that an investigation is pending. However, after the Commission files a statement of charges, dismisses the complaint, or otherwise closes the investigation or initial proceedings, confidentiality ceases to apply to any person outside the Commission.
See the Confidentiality section of this website for more information.
Where the Commission finds probable cause and believes it has sufficient basis to proceed, it will order the filing of a Statement of Charges and hold a public fact-finding hearing. At such a hearing, the judge has the right to defend against the charges and to be represented by a lawyer. Witnesses and documents may be subpoenaed. If no violation is found, the complaint will be dismissed. If a violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct is found by clear, cogent and convincing evidence, the Commission may take the following actions:
If the Commission finds permanent disability which is seriously interfering with the judge's ability to perform judicial duties, the Commission shall recommend that the supreme court retire the judge.
A judge may file an appeal de novo to the supreme court within 30 days after a Commission admonishment, reprimand or censure.
See the Complaint Process section of the website for more information.
See the File a Complaint section of the website for more information.
You may mail or fax your complaint to:
Commission on Judicial ConductBecause of confidentiality concerns, the Commission DOES NOT correspond about specific complaints by email at this time.
See the File a Complaint section of the website for more information.
The Commission normally meets every other month so final disposition of most complaints may take several months, depending on the complexity of the matter and the number of pending complaints.
Most investigations are conducted without a personal interview with the complainant. While in-person interviews are not impossible, they are the exception, rather than the rule, and are conducted at the discretion of the investigators. Since the Commission is required to conduct an independent investigation, information is gathered from official sources, interviews, and other means. The Commission office is small, and contains a great deal of confidential information. The facility is not designed to accomodate interviews. Commission investigators frequently conduct interviews by telephone and occasionally, if necessary, in person at various locations in the state.
The Commission is not a substitute for protecting your legal rights. You should contact a lawyer to protect your rights in any matter. Commission authority is limited to dealing with violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct adopted by the Washington State Supreme Court.
No. The Commission cannot give legal advice to citizens or represent clients.
The Commission does not represent the people who contact it. Our job is to gather facts from all available sources and to decide whether a judge or commissioner engaged in judicial misconduct - a violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct.
The Commission is not a substitute for protecting your legal rights. You should contact a lawyer to protect your rights in any matter. Commission authority is limited to dealing with violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct adopted by the Washington State Supreme Court.
The Commission is not a substitute for protecting your legal rights. You should contact a lawyer to protect your rights in any matter.
Your complaint of judicial misconduct is a matter separate from your litigation.
No. You must proceed with whatever remedy is available to you within the court system to correct any judicial errors you believe were committed in your case. Your complaint of judicial misconduct is a matter separate from your litigation.
Filing a complaint against a judge with the Commission is not itself sufficient reason to remove a judge from your case. Your complaint of judicial misconduct is a matter separate from your litigation. The allegations you make about the judge might or might not be sufficient grounds to ask a judge to recuse from your case, and you must make that decision, yourself. The fact that you complained to the Commission about those allegations is not grounds for recusal.